Which someone decides on the regulations?
AIUI the building regs do actually say combustible cladding should not
be used on high rise buildings.
I don't think there is any doubt that it was combustible or that it was
high rise.
As the UK government appears to be unable to make a regulation to stop
this happening maybe the EU can? While they are at it fire retardant is
not adequate and it should be non-combustible.

Ronan Point happened because there was no redundancy in the structure, remove
one element such as a wall of an individual flat and everything else in the
vicinity is incapable of carrying the loads it now has to carry.

ISTR that there was also the problem that the pre-fabricated panels did
not fit together properly, and were bodged/adjusted on site, which
compromised the structural integrity of the structure.
Properly assembled, the explosion /should/ have not caused the panels to
blow out and cause the progressive collapse of the corner concerned.

Lots of space round the building, so build another tower block about 20
feet away and join them every 5 floors with fire-resistant walkways,
losing one flat in every 5 floors from the original.
That way any front door security system will keep out the unwanted.

External stairwells, which some tower blocks have, only need to be made
of fire-resistant material like reinforced concrete. If the main fire
is in the building then the external stairwell is unaffected.
But this is social housing, where people think nothing of dumping
old mattresses and other junk at the bottom. Plus the problem
with vandals, druggies leaving needles etc etc.

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.

--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].
Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also
cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that
it's determined you qualify for.
If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing
benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be
under-funded.
[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify for
more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be living in a
five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like
*raising* the social care means test threshold from ?23k to ?100k is
called a "dementure tax".
(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care,
either).

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.